GO Corporation was founded in 1987 to create portable computers, an operating system, and software with a pen-based user interface. It was famous not only for its pioneering work in Pen-based computing but as well as being one of the most well-funded start-up companies of its time.Its founders were Jerry Kaplan, Robert Carr, and Kevin Doren. Mr. Kaplan subsequently chronicled the history of the company in his book Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure. Omid Kordestani, former Senior VP of Global Business at Google, began his startup career with GO Corporation. Other notable GO alumni include CEO Bill Campbell , VP Sales Stratton Sclavos , CFO and VP of Business Operations Randy Komisar , and VP Marketing Mike Homer . Wikipedia.

A combination of a container and a plurality of food items nested within the container may include base and a first cavity in the base. A first food item may be nested in the first cavity. The first food item may include a decorated section. The first food item may include a disposable wrapper having an exposed upper wrapper edge. The container may include a lid moveable between a closed position and an open position. A first retainer may be on the lid. When the lid is in the closed position the first retainer may overlie a first portion of the upper wrapper edge. When the container is inverted with the lid in the closed position relative axial movement between the first food item and the first cavity may be limited by contact between the first retainer and the upper wrapper edge.

Twitter has announced the appointment of former Google executive Omid Kordestani to its board of directors, serving as executive chairman.
Twitter’s co-founder, Jack Dorsey, who returned to the permanent role of CEO last week, said: “A great chairperson is the first step to continuing to make our board one of the best in the world, and purpose-built to serve Twitter.
“Omid is a proven and experienced leader, who will directly help and coach me and our leadership, and help us recruit the best folks to Twitter.”
Kordestani was chief business officer of Google from August 2014 to August of this year, when the company reorganised under its new umbrella corporation, Alphabet, and the executive was sidelined. He has remained on as “senior advisor.” How Kordestani’s role will differ from Dorsey’s own remains to be seen
Kordestani tweeted that: “It’s rare you get to be at a company with an amazing business that’s also transforming the world. I’ve had [the] good fortune to be at three: Netscape, Google and now Twitter.”
Kordestani has also worked as a vice president at Netscape and Hewlett Packard, previously sat on Spotify’s board of directors and was a non-executive at Vodafone until 2014.
He was widely praised for his time at Netscape after revenue increased from $88 million to around $200 million in 18 months. However, he had less success at GO Corporation, which folded in 1994.
Despite being a Silicon Valley heavyweight, it appears that Twitter’s new executive chairman has only ever sent 11 tweets – 27% of which have been sent in the last 15 minutes. He follows 27 people and is followed by 2,247 at the time of writing.
On Tuesday, Twitter announced it would cut its global staff by 8% (or around 336 employees). Twitter told the SEC that it expects earnings “for the third quarter of 2015 to be at or above the high end of the previously forecasted ranges” after the layoffs.
In one of the first moves since he was permanently reappointed CEO to the company he co-founded in 2006, Dorsey wrote in a letter to staff: “We feel strongly that engineering will move much faster with a smaller and nimbler team, while remaining the biggest percentage of our workforce. And the rest of the organisation will be streamlined in parallel.”
• Twitter slashes global workforce as it struggles for growth

Tablets have been around for decades, but have recently, along with smartphones, moved centre-stage as the 'post-PC' era, which is characterised by the widespread use of wireless-connected mobile devices, gathers pace. The post-PC generation has a 'work anywhere, anytime' expectation, which C-level executives (who are often early adopters of mobile technology) are generally happy to encourage. These are some of the forces driving the consumerisation of IT, which can provide IT departments with security, management and compliance headaches when employees 'bring their own' devices, applications and cloud-storage services.
In this article, we examine where tablets came from, what they have evolved into, how they can enhance business productivity, and how they're likely to develop.
Apple's first-generation iPad may have inspired the recent tsunami of tablets, but the form factor goes back a lot further than 2010 (although, interestingly enough, there is a very early Apple connection).
The idea of portable touchscreen devices connected to information repositories, often with advanced capabilities such as wireless connectivity, speech recognition and artificial intelligence, is prevalent in the science fiction of the 1960s and early 70s (a pre-PC era when computers were anything but portable). Notable examples are the PADD (Personal Access Display Device) in Star Trek, the Newspad in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the BBC radio series of the same name (for more tablet history, see our accompanying timeline infographic) .
The Apple connection comes via visionary computer scientist Alan Kay, who was an Apple Fellow, mostly at the company's Advanced Technology Group, from 1984 until 1997. Prior to that, Kay worked at the renowned Xerox PARC, where in 1972 he produced a seminal paper entitled 'A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages'. This was a blueprint for an education-oriented portable computer, summarised thus:
The size should be no larger than a notebook; weight less than 4lbs; the visual display should be able to present at least 4000 printing quality characters with contrast ratios approaching that of a book; dynamic graphics of reasonable quality should be possible; there should be removable local file storage of at least one million characters (about 500 ordinary book pages) traded off against several hours of audio files...A combination of this "carry anywhere" device and a global information utility such as the ARPA network or two-way cable TV, will bring the libraries and schools (not to mention stores and billboards) of the world to the home. One can imagine one of the first programs an owner will write is a filter to eliminate advertising!
Not bad for 1972 (note: 'the ARPA network' is the nascent internet) — especially as Kay goes on to specify voice input, a low-power flat-panel LCD display with a resolution of 1,024 by 1,024 pixels, a touchscreen model with an on-screen keyboard and a target price of $500.
Apple's own tablet computing project began in 1987, inspired by the conceptual Knowledge Navigator, its first product being the (roughly) A5-sized Newton MessagePad, released in 1993. This wasn't the first commercially available pen-based tablet, though: that accolade goes to GriD Systems' 1989 GridPad, which ran MS-DOS. The first purpose-built pen-based operating system was GO Corporation's 1991 PenPoint OS — a development that spurred Microsoft to enter the fray with Windows for Pen Computing 1.0 (an extension of Windows 3.1) in 1992.
Several other landmark devices — notably the first IBM ThinkPad, the 700T — appeared before the next phase of tablet computing, which kicked off when Bill Gates took to the stage of the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas to deliver the keynote at Comdex/Fall on 13 November 2000 (I remember it well...I was there). During the speech, Gates (and Microsoft software architect Bert Keeley) demonstrated a prototype Tablet PC with a 600MHz CPU, 128MB of RAM, a 10GB hard disk and a pair of USB ports. This slate-style device ran a beta version of Windows XP (codenamed Whistler) with pen computing extensions, and showcased 'rich digital ink' that captured on-screen handwriting and drawing for instant or deferred manipulation.
Plenty of Windows tablets — both slates and convertible clamshells — appeared between 2000 and the iPad's launch in April 2010, but despite winning some converts these devices didn't take the mainstream computing world by storm. However, tablets — often ruggedised ones — did become established in vertical markets such as healthcare, construction, field service and retail.
Despite Microsoft's best efforts, the 'after iPad' tablet story is one of market domination by Apple, with Android-based tablets —mostly made by Samsung — emerging as the main challengers. A number of alternative platforms and devices, including BlackBerry's QNX-based PlayBook and HP's short-lived webOS-based TouchPad, have fallen by the wayside over the years. Microsoft's latest move was to get into the tablet hardware business itself with the Surface RT and Surface Pro devices, which debuted in 2012.
Here's a snapshot of the tablet market at the end of 2013, showing Apple as the leading vendor, with Samsung in second place, and Android as the leading platform, ahead of iOS. In both graphs, the 2012-2013 trend is downwards for Apple/iOS and upwards for Samsung/Android:
By 2017, IDC forecasts that Microsoft's Windows will have grabbed around 10 percent of the tablet OS market share, with Android leading at 59 percent and iOS in second place at 31 percent.
Tablets come in a number of shapes and sizes, and since the form factor largely determines the use case, it's useful to set out the various subcategories. There are no 'canonical' definitions here, but hopefully this list isn't too far off the mark:
Phablet With 6-7in. screens, phablets sit mid-way between smartphones and small tablets, offering a better viewing, reading and document editing (or even creation) experience. Most leading smartphone vendors, with the notable exception of Apple, now offer a phablet (Samsung Galaxy Note 3, Sony Xperia Z Ultra, Nokia Lumia 1520, HTC One Max, Acer Liquid S2).
Small tablet For many people, 7-8in. tablets provide an ideal combination of portability, (moderate) computing power and screen readability. Leading examples are Google's Nexus 7, the Apple iPad Mini and Samsung's Galaxy Tab 3 7.0.
Medium-sized tablet This is the mainstream tablet subcategory, typified by the full-size iPad, featuring a 9-10in. screen. Portable, but not pocketable like a 7-8in. tablet, these more powerful devices will often have optional add-on keyboards or docks to support heavier-duty content creation workloads.
Large tablet Still relatively rare, tablets with 10in. screens or larger, such as Samsung's Galaxy NotePRO 12.2, offer the best viewing experience, and can accommodate several apps on-screen simultaneously, making for better productivity. The trade-off, of course, is decreased portability. Panasonic's 20-inch Toughpad 4K Tablet, the biggest and most powerful tablet currently available, is something of an outlier.
Hybrid/convertible These are keyboard-equipped touchscreen devices, usually with 10in. screens or larger, that have some sliding, twisting or keyboard-removal mechanism that allows them to switch between laptop and tablet modes. There are many examples, including Microsoft's Surface Pro 2 (with keyboard cover), the Asus Transformer Book T100 and Lenovo's ThinkPad Yoga.
If we look at tablets in context with other kinds of computers (see diagram above), we can see that they fill the gap between 'mainstream mobile productivity' devices (hybrid tablets, ultrabooks and 13-15in. notebooks) and those that major on 'mobile communication and content consumption' (smartphones and phablets). The more content editing and creating you want to do, the more likely you are to require a tablet with a larger screen and a keyboard (either as an add-on or as part of a hybrid device).
If your content-creation workloads demand the fastest CPUs, heavy-duty discrete graphics and, in particular, large amounts of screen real estate, then today's tablets (the aforementioned Toughpad 4K Tablet excepted) are unlikely to be up to the job. Sometimes you'll be able to hook up to a big monitor, but often you'll need to consider a larger and more powerful notebook, desktop PC or workstation.
However, given that today's smartphones pack the computing muscle once associated with 'powerful' desktop PCs, there's no reason why this trend, along with increasingly sophisticated cloud-based services, shouldn't continue. This would mean that you'd carry one (powerful, richly connected) mobile device, and simply access the most appropriate display for the situation you're in.
These ideas underpin Canonical's plans for the Ubuntu Linux distribution, which is eventually planned to have a flexible user interface that will accommodate smartphone, tablet, PC and TV screens. If you carry a 'superphone' such as Canonical's (almost) crowd-funded Edge device, you could bring it into the office, dock it with a monitor, keyboard and mouse, and carry on working with whatever apps were open, only in desktop mode.
Tablets have had a few years to work their way into businesses, and a number of surveys have examined how they are being put to use, and also how they're being managed.
Enterprise content management/collaboration company Alfresco surveyed 308 professionals in mostly small-to-medium-sized businesses in 2012 and found that 76 percent used tablets for business purposes. The breakdown of usage is not unexpected, with communication and content consumption prominent:
A high proportion of Alfresco's respondents (56.4%) worked in IT, with engineering and R&D in second place (10.5%). This suggests that tech-savvy early adopters (64.1% of respondents described themselves as such) were driving tablet adoption in the businesses surveyed. However, despite the high penetration of tablets in IT departments, only 17.3 percent of respondents said that their company had implemented a formal tablet use policy, and just 25.3 percent required the installation of security software. Bear in mind that the respondents were mostly from SMEs; it's unlikely that the 13.1 percent from enterprises with 10,000 or more employees were working under such an informal regime.
Alfresco also asked respondents about the situations when they used tablets, smartphones and PCs. Echoing our taxonomy discussion above, the results show very clearly how tablets fill the gap between more mobile smartphones and more powerful but deskbound PCs:
Another 2012 survey, from Microsoft-centred consulting services provider Avanade, also looked at tablet usage in business. A key point to emerge from this study, which canvassed 599 C-level executives in 2012, was that a third of respondents said they used tablets for 'advanced' business functions such as CRM, project management, content creation and data analysis. Another indicator of the impact of the consumerisation of IT is that 71 percent of respondents said their company had altered at least one business process — such as IT management, sales and marketing, HR or customer services — to accommodate the increased use of smartphones and tablets, while 20 percent said they had changed four or more processes.
Examine any article about tablets on this website and you'll usually find a lively debate in the comments section about the pros and cons of the form factor and/or the operating system. That's only natural when a relatively new style of computing is finding its feet in business — or, more accurately, the intersection between business and home.
What's clear is that tablet computing has a lengthy heritage, has now become a productive component of business IT, and will continue to evolve as mobile devices become more powerful, screen and battery technology improves, and software platforms become more flexible.
A generation ago, visionaries imagined having natural-feeling conversations with properly intelligent agents on super-connected 'carry anywhere' computers; we're not there just yet, but we're a lot closer.

It’s just another %&$! day for Dre, so I begin like this
Just that gangsta glare with the gangsta raps
At Opsware I used to teach a management expectations course, because I deeply believed in training. In it, I made it clear that I expected every manager to meet with her people on a regular basis. I even gave instructions on how to conduct a one-on-one meeting so there could be no excuses.
Then one day while I happily went about my job, it came to my attention that one of my managers hadn’t had a one-on-one with any of his employees in more than six months. While I knew to “expect what I inspect,” I did not expect this. No one-on-one in over six months? How was it possible for me to invest so much time thinking about management, preparing materials and personally training my managers and then get no one-on-ones for six months? Wow, so much for CEO authority. If that’s how the managers listen to me, then why do I even bother coming to work?
I thought that leading by example would be the sure way to get the company to do what I wanted. Lord knows the company picked up all of my bad habits, so why didn’t they pick up my good habits? Had I lost the team? I recalled a conversation I’d had with my father many years ago regarding Tommy Heinsohn, the Boston Celtics basketball coach at the time. Heinsohn had been one of the most successful coaches in the world, including being named “coach of the year” and winning two NBA championships. However, he had gone downhill fast and ended up with the worst record in the league. I asked my father what happened. He said, “The players stopped paying attention to his temper tantrums. Heinsohn used to yell at the team and they’d respond. Now they just ignore him.” Was the team now ignoring me? Had I yelled at them one time too many?
The more that I thought about it, the more I realized that while I had told the team “what” to do, I had not been clear about “why” I wanted them to do it. Clearly, my authority alone was not enough to get them to do what I wanted. Given the large number of things that we were trying to accomplish, managers couldn’t get to everything and came up with their own priorities. Apparently, this manager didn’t think that meeting with his people was all that important and I hadn’t explained to him why it was so important.
So why did I force every manager through management training? Why did I demand that managers have one-on-ones with employees? After much deliberation with myself, I settled on an articulation of the core reason and I called up the offending manager’s boss — I’ll call him Steve — and I told him that I needed to see him right away.
When Steve came into my office, I asked him a question: Steve, do you know why I came to work today?
Steve: What do you mean, Ben?
Me: Why did I bother waking up? Why did I bother coming in? If it was about the money, couldn’t I sell the company tomorrow and have more money than I ever wanted? I don’t want to be famous, in fact just the opposite.
Me: Well, then why did I come to work.
Me: Well, let me explain. I came to work, because it’s personally very important to me that Opsware be a good company. It’s important to me that the people who spend 12 to 16 hours per day here, which is most of their waking life, have a good life. It’s why I come to work.
Me: Do you know the difference between a good place to work and a bad place to work?
Me: What is the difference?
Me: Let me break it down for you. In good organizations, people can focus on their work and have confidence that if they get their work done, good things will happen for both the company and them personally. It is a true pleasure to work in an organization such as this. Every person can wake up knowing that the work they do will be efficient, effective and make a difference both for the organization and themselves. These things make their jobs both motivating and fulfilling.
In a poor organization, on the other hand, people spend much of their time fighting organizational boundaries, infighting and broken processes. They are not even clear on what their jobs are, so there is no way to know if they are getting the job done or not. In the miracle case that they work ridiculous hours and get the job done, they have no idea what it means for the company or their careers. To make it all much worse and rub salt in the wound, when they finally work up the courage to tell management how fucked up their situation is, management denies there is a problem, then defends the status quo, then ignores the problem.”
Me: Are you aware that your manager Tim has not met with any of his employees in the past six months?
Me: Now that you are aware, do you realize that there is no possible way for him to even be informed as to whether or not his organization is good or bad?
Me: In summary, you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal. As a result, if Tim doesn’t meet with each one of his employees in the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to fire him and to fire you. Are we clear?
You might argue that no matter how well managed a company is, it will fail without product/market fit. You might argue further that horribly managed companies that achieve massive product/market fit succeed just fine. And you would be right on both accounts. So was it really necessary for me to make such a dramatic speech and threaten one of my executives?
I think it was for the following three reasons:
When things go well, the reasons to stay at company are many:
When things go poorly, all those reasons become reasons to leave. In fact, the only thing that keeps an employee at a company when things go horribly wrong — other than needing a job, which isn’t so applicable in the current macro environment — is that she likes her job.
There has never been a company in the history of the world that had a monotonically increasing stock price. In bad companies, when the economics disappear, so do the employees. In technology companies, when the employees disappear, the spiral begins: the company declines in value, the best employees leave, the company declines in value, the best employees leave … Spirals are extremely difficult to reverse.
When I first met my friend Bill Campbell, he was chairman of Intuit, on the board of Apple and a mentor to many of the top CEOs in the industry, including Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos. However, those things did not impress me nearly as much as his time running a company called GO Corporation. GO essentially attempted to build an iPhone in 1992. The company raised more money than almost any other venture-capital backed startup in history and lost nearly all of it before selling itself for nearly nothing to AT&T in 1994.
Now that probably doesn’t sound impressive. In fact, it probably sounds like a horrible failure. But I’d met tens of GO employees in my career, including great people such as Mike Homer, Danny Shader, Frank Chen and Stratton Sclavous, and the amazing thing was that every GO employee that I’d ever met counted GO as one of the greatest work experiences of their lives. The best work experience ever despite the fact that their careers stood still, they made no money and they were front-page failures. GO was a good place to work.
This made me realize what an amazingly effective CEO Bill was. Apparently, John Doerr thought that too, because when Scott Cook needed a CEO for Intuit, John recommended Bill even though Bill lost a ton of John’s money at GO. And for years, everyone who ever came in contact with GO employees knew what Bill was about. He was about building good companies.
If you do nothing else, be like Bill and build a good company.
Ben Horowitz is co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He was a co-founder and CEO of Opsware (formerly Loudcloud), which was acquired by HP, and he ran several product divisions at Netscape. He serves on the board of such companies as Capriza, Foursquare, Jawbone, Lytro, Magnet, NationBuilder, Nicira, Okta, SnapLogic and Tidemark. He blogs at http://bhorowitz.com/.

One or more adjustable-length straps are used to secure a child safety seat to wheeled luggage, to facilitate transporting a child, the childs safety seat, and luggage, all at the same time. Depending on the features available on the child safety seat, different types of straps may be utilized in different ways.

A food assembly includes a first layer, which may be formed of cake, and a second layer, which may be formed of icing. The first layer may include at least four food elements. The food elements may be shaped so that tops of the food elements are contiguous and define a top surface of the first layer. The second layer adjoins the top surface. Upon pulling a selected one of the food elements away from the remainder of the first layer, a portion of the second layer is separated from the remainder of the second layer. The food assembly may be combined with a container having a base and at least four pockets, and each of the food elements of the food assembly may be nested in a respective one of the pockets.